AUSTERITY’ RECONSIDERED

AUSTERITY’ RECONSIDERED

  • Jan 24th, 1991

In the recent past, in the State of Rajasthan, a lot of controversy has been generated on the issue of austerity on the part of public officials, especially the administrative service officers. It has been alleged and advertised that the civil service officials are misusing the facilities on the government and must be cut to size. It was reported in the press by the Government authorities a few days back that the government have made a saving of about Rs. 8 lakh by adopting measures to check the misuse of the government vehicles by officers following a more than 8 month long publicity campaign and physical checking.

Do such gimmicks and dramas serve any purpose?

If yes, then what purpose and to whose benefit? The whole issue can be seen from five arguments.

(A) Economy argument:

It has been said that the state of Rajasthan is facing a tight resource position and hence austerity measures are called for. It must be appreciated that austerity measures cannot be enforced by departmental circulars, office orders etc. and in any case the spirit of austerity cannot percolate down unless exemplary action is taken at the topmost echelons. Out Indian Society is a hierarchical system and the people always look towards the top for lessons. The topmost position in Government hierarchy is that of the Governor of the State. If the government were really concerned to effect economy, they would perhaps do best by putting the Governor’s House, the spacious and lavish bungalows of Chief Minister and other Ministers to rent which would certainly save/generate at least 100 times resources compared to what Government achieved by the drama on vehicle misuse for the last 8 months. But certainly, it is debatable that certain facilities are expected to be attacked to the public positions, not for the personal comforts or luxury of the person-incumbent, but to maintain the image of dignity and authority of the public positions. Ifthe above is true for politicalexecutives, the same is more relevant for permanent executives. Hence, it is worthwhile considering to whether the measures like check on use of minimum facilities are really cost-effective.

It has also been suggested that the present government aims to cut the officers to ‘Size’. It would be relevant to mention here that before cutting the officers to size, the government should be wise to ascertain what really is the ‘size’ of the officers. About 100 — 150 IAS officers of the country are chosen every year by a rigorous and lengthy screening process from among more than two lac aspirants and about 30-35 RAS officers from more than 15,000 aspirants. The market offers much more in terms of salary and perquisites to persons who are in public sector, corporate sector etc. So, 415 Pay Commission, recommendations notwithstanding, government already deprives the public officials from lots of benefits, which they would deserve otherwise in non-government sector. What motivates persons to join civil services are the symbols of dignity. If the government fails to appreciate that, then perhaps it could be a costly mistake in the long run.

(B) Efficiency Argument:-

The measures to check “misuse” of facilities by public officials have been suggested as a part of a package of measures to streamline and tone up administration. In this line of thinking, it must be realized that the business of the government has always been an imperfect one attempting towards perfection. The persons who man the positions of the government are not saints or messiahs or hermits, but ordinary fallible mortals. Any realistic administrator, therefore, has to allow a margin of tolerance for such faults while trying to reform the system incessantly. But he can not afford to quarrel with his tools. If he does, he would certainly prove to be the proverbial bad workman, howsoever brilliant and exceptional, his personal qualities be. The method of motivation is the only relevant option, both positive and negative, to be administered in a slow and steady way.

(C) Moral Argument:-

It has been argued that the ethical image of public service would improve, if austerity is adopted by public officials. It may be realized that it is by sheer responsive and efficient delivery of goods to the public that the image of the government can improve. It is efficiency, more than austerity, which would tone up things. The people who pay taxes, both direct and indirect, for the government are certainly more felicific and utilitarian in their assessment of the government and are more keen to watch what the public officials do, rather than what they are like or what lofty ideals they profess.

(D)Administrative Argument:-

The political executive and permanent executive are the two pillars of the government apart from the legislature and the judiciary. The permanent executives have the onerous responsibility to hold and maintain a basic persistent, predictable and continuous framework of civil services in accordance with the constitution irrespective of the changes in the political leadership, who reflect the changes and shifts in the focus of peoples’ aspirations from time to time. Hence the political executive has a limited legitimate right to tinker with permanent executives in the above context. The basic service conditions like pay, perquisites etc. of the high positions of Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commissioner etc., therefore, have deliberately been excluded from the purview of political decision-making. In the same way, the over-zealousness and misplaced mania of a particular government for a particular change, be it austerity or whatever, seeking to curtail or withdraw something, thus adversely affecting service conditions is unwarranted, to that extent.

(E) POLITICAL ARGUMENT:-

Analysts always try to go beyond the professed objectives of any measure to discover the real intentions behind them. In the grapevine, the austerity measure selectively enforced on administrative services, with full Press coverage and fan fareis being seen as a sinister design to malign and hence illegitimise the civil service who have otherwise the legitimate, institutionalized authority to control the whims and fancies of political executives, lest they convert a system based on rule of law to rule of men. The denial of attractive incentives and service conditions would, first of all, impede the inflow of brilliant and capable persons into civil service, in the long run. In the short run, the ‘austerity’ measures would serve as a legitimate ‘stick’ for the circus-master to tame the lions and run the show, the way he wants.

Rajasthan, compared to the bordering states of U.P., Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, has already the distinction of being highly conservative in providing facilities to public officials, though undoubtedly and admittedly it has the most imaginative and responsive administrative setup. Compared to how other bordering states treat their public officials, Rajasthan’s public officials certainly deserve better, at least to be spared from being subjected to an orchestrated and often slanderous publicity campaign, as if, they were bandits looting away the limited state-kitty in selfish parasitic greed and the self-appointed high-priests of austerity are Plato’s Philosopher-Kings descending from God’s heaven to set in order the spoilt Rajasthan. An ex-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, removed from service on allegations of misconduct, and corruption should not fancy that he has a “burden” to carry like that and engage in a misconceived mission, when he has risen to the pinnate of authority as CM by stroke of fate.